I. SHORT TITLE: People v.

Claro
II. FULL TITLE:
G.R. No. 199894: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARLITO CLARO y
MAHINAY, Accused-Appellant.

III. TOPIC: Criminal Law

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On March 14, 2006, AAA, a housemaid received a text message from Carlito Claro
(Claro), a security guard, asking her if they could meet in a location near AAA’s workplace.
They agreed to meet at Augusto San Francisco Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, where they
boarded a passenger jeepney bound for Rizal Avenue in Sta. Cruz, Manila. They first went
to a fast food restaurant where they bought food for takeout and then they proceed to
the Aroma Motel. AAA refused to go up the stairs of the motel which prompted Claro to
grab a hold of AAA’s hand and pull her up the stairs, claiming that they would only talk
and eat.
Upon entering the room, AAA tried to leave but Claro immediately closed the door
behind him and pushed her onto the bed. She attempted to leave but he pulled her back
to the bed and told her that he loved her. Instead of responding to him, she asked Claro
if she could use the toilet. While inside the comfort room she hurriedly called her cousin,
Alberto German (German), a police officer but she was unable to give him the exact
location because her phone ran out of charge. Claro then barged into the comfort room
and pulled her towards the bed. He forcibly removed her clothes, went on top of her, and
then proceeded to forcibly insert his penis into her vagina. She kept punching him to let
him stop, but to no avail. When the act was finished, she hurriedly dressed and left the
room. However, she had no choice but to ride with him in the same passenger jeepney
because she did not know her way back.
When she arrived home, she immediately narrated the ordeal to German, who
instructed her to contact Claro and agree to meet with him again so that they could
apprehend him. She followed his instructions. Just as they agreed, Claro went to the
assigned meeting place, where German quickly approached him and introduced himself
as a police officer. The accused tried to run away, but German seized him and brought
him to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for investigation.
Dr. Wilfredo E. Tierra, the NBI medico-legal officer, conducted the medico-genital
examination of AAA. He found the presence of fresh deep hymenal laceration at 5 o'clock
position with edges bleeding; abrasion measuring 1.3 cm. on the left breast; and
contusion measuring 1.5 cm. on the right hand of AAA.

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals confirmed the decision of the RTC and denied the instant appeal. The CA
regarded AAA's testimony as credible; and ruled that the presence of bruises and
abrasions on the body of AAA proved that she had been subjected to bodily harm before
he accomplished his lustful desires. Furthermore, the CA observed that the fact that the
parties had gone home together after the incident was sufficiently explained by AAA's
statement that she had no choice but to go with him because she did not know her way
back.

VI. ISSUE

Did the RTC and the CA correctly find and pronounce the accused guilty of rape
beyond reasonable doubt?

VII. RULING

1. NO. In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt
is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is defined as the state of
the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence,
leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot say they feel an
abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.
 That the medico-legal examination of March 14, 2006 turned up with the findings
of abrasions on AAA's left breast and contusions on her right hand did not
necessarily mean that the accused had applied force in the context of forcing her
to have sex with him. The conclusion of the CA was, therefore, too sweeping, for
it inexplicably ignored the probability of consensuality between the parties. Such
findings did not justify the full rejection of the demonstrable consensuality of their
sexual intercourse. Moreover, the mere presence of abrasions and contusions on
her did not preclude the giving of her consent to the sexual intercourse, for
abrasions and contusions could also be suffered during voluntary submission of
the partners to each other's lust. Such possibility calls for us to open our minds to
the conclusion that the sexual intercourse resulted from consensuality between
them.
Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt necessarily means that
mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should not
sway judgment against him. Without the proof of his guilt being beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused herein was not overcome. His acquittal should follow.

VI. DISPOSITIVE PORTION

In People v. Claro, it was held that:

“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the
Court of Appeals promulgated on March 24, 2011 affirming the conviction for rape of
CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY under the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 21, in Manila; ACQUITS CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY for failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; ORDERS his immediate release from the
National Penitentiary unless there are other lawful causes warranting his continuing
confinement thereat; and DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to
implement the release of CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY in accordance with this
decision, and to report on his compliance within l 0 days from receipt.”
VII. ARGUMENTS

In the present case, we dissent as to the ruling of the Supreme Court acquitting
Carlito Claro of the crime of rape charged against him by private complainant herein
named as AAA. While the Supreme Court’s decision seems proper and based upon law,
jurisprudence and logic, after strict scrutiny of the case at hand we find that apparently
the Court’s decision is incorrect and as such conviction of Claro should be in place for the
crime of rape.

Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of rape:

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation xxx

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

The Supreme Court based its ruling upon the presumption of innocence as, according
to the Court, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused was not
sufficiently established. According to the ruling of the case, there was still a cloud of
doubt on whether the sexual intercourse was done with consent or not. This conclusion
was based upon three premises: first, the circumstances before, during and after the
alleged rape incident; second, the medico-legal report showing the injuries that AAA
received from the rape incident; and last, the presumption of innocence as
complemented by the quantum of evidence of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The counter-arguments for the aforementioned premises shall be discussed further.
 First, although the statements of the parties presented contradictions, there were
established circumstances in this case – their agreement to go on a lover’s date; their
travelling together a long way from their meeting place on board the jeepney; their
alighting on Rizal Avenue to take a meal together; their walking together to the motel,
and checking in together without the complainant manifesting resistance; and their
entering the designated room without protest from her. According to the Supreme Court,
the aforementioned circumstances sufficiently establish beyond all doubt that they had
consented to perform consensual sexual intercourse.

However, such argumentation is flawed. It does not follow that when a woman
planned and went on a date with her lover, then subsequently went in a motel with the
man, such automatically leads to consensual sexual intercourse. A woman who agrees to
a romantic date with her lover does not readily show that she will also agree to have sex
with the man. Consequently, a person, of any gender, may or may not agree to perform
sexual conduct even if in a comfortable and secluded place such as a motel room. Here,
the Court’s reasoning was based upon its own assumptions. Such argument equates to
the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization, and as such, cannot be relied upon.

Furthermore, it was not shown on the records that the couple had perform sexual
intercourse in the past. Hence, it may well be concluded that the incident was new to the
complainant. That she, having no experience of sexual intercourse other than that fateful
day, it is more probable that she would have not consented to such act. Additionally, the
medico-legal report reveals the presence of fresh hymenal laceration. According to the
accused, he immediately stopped the penetration when AAA told him that she was not yet
ready to perform the act. Such statement contradicts the medical finding conducted upon
AAA.

Second, the Court ruled that the medico-legal examination which showed that AAA
received abrasions on her left breast and contusions on her right hand did not necessarily
mean that the accused had applied force in the context of forcing her to have sex with
him. According to the Court the mere presence of abrasions and contusions on her did not
preclude the giving of her consent to the sexual intercourse for such injuries could also be
suffered during voluntary submission of the partners to each other’s lust.

Conversely, various jurisprudence reveals that “It is unreasonable to demand a

standard rational reaction to an irrational experience xxx One cannot be expected to act as
usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a human mind
placed under emotional stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard
reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope
with different circumstances.” (People v. Pareja) Furthermore, in the past this Court has
recognized the fact that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or
has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not
negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the
sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused.

In every problem we face, there can be no strict and accurate rule that every person
burdened with such problem or situation will react the same way. The workings of a
human mind placed under a great deal of emotional and psychological stress are
unpredictable and different people react differently. (People v. San Juan 270 SCRA 693)
As to rape incidents, while one rape incident varies from another, the reactions and
tendencies of the rape victims differ from each case as well. While most women will
immediately flee from their aggressors, others become virtually catatonic because of the
mental shock they experience. (People v. Corea)

Also, a recent Swedish study confirms this premise. According to the said study
published in the journal Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, it is normal for
rape victims to suffer from temporary paralysis during the rape incident which precludes
them from fighting back. At first, it may look that the victim has given her consent during
the sexual intercourse. However, the rape victim may well be suffering from temporary
paralysis brought by the shock and stress while being raped. The researchers spoke to
nearly 300 women who went to an emergency clinic in Stockholm within one month of a
rape or attempted rape. Seventy percent (70%) of the women said they experienced
significant “tonic immobility,” or involuntary paralysis, during the attack.

As regards the medico-legal report submitted, it has been well-entrenched in the

decisions of the Supreme Court that “[A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the
commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not
essential to conviction. x x x.” (People v. Pareja) Therefore, in light of the
aforementioned, it is erroneous for the Court to decide based on the medico-legal
reports.

Moreover, in connection with the other premises the reason of the Court for
acquitting the accused was the presumption of innocence and the equipoise rule.
According to them, the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the presence of the abrasions and contusions
sustained by the victim, her actions and the existing circumstances before, during and
after the incident leads to the conclusion that carnal knowledge was done with consent.
That after presentation of proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

Yet, in resolving the case, it is apparent that the Court overlooked several points
which, if reviewed with proper consideration and strict scrutiny, will reveal that the
accused should not be acquitted. First, it is but proper for the Court to consider not only
that rape cases contain sensitive matter but also that the present case is of peculiar
nature. Here, both parties could not present valuable evidences to support their
contradicting claims. They only relied upon their own testimonies as well as one witness
of their own.

On the outset, the evidences of the prosecution and the defense seem to be equally
balanced. Yet an accurate analysis of the facts will show that the evidences presented by
the prosecution is stronger and properly overthrows the defense. Testimonies of the rape
victim is more credible, demands greater respect and weight than that of the defense.
Moreover, there was no credible witness presented by the defense; the accused’s mother
is not an uninterested person. Relatives, specially parents, are expected to protect each
other or their child, thus they cannot be expected to be credible and uninterested
witnesses.

Now, as to the statements of the rape victim, such should be afforded great weight in
the scrutiny of facts and the eventual resolution of the case. It is well-settled that no
woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts
and submit herself to public humiliation and scrutiny via an open trial, if her sordid tale
was not true and her sole motivation was not to have the culprit apprehended and
punished. (People v. Gersamio) Furthermore, a candid narration by a victim of rape can
bear the earmarks of credibility, particularly where no motive is attributed to the rape
victim that would make her testify falsely against the accused. (People v. Henson 270
Scra 634) If we will follow that the evidences presented are equal, then based on the
foregoing, the battle will be between the testimony of the prosecution against the
defense. However, the aforementioned jurisprudence establish that testimony of the
victim can stand alone and is afforded greater weight than the denial and alibi of the
defense.

Lastly, a number of rape allegations were dismissed by courts because it was found
that there were substantial inconsistencies with the victims’ testimonies as well as the
fact that they were driven by some motive to fabricate untruthful rape allegations. Yet, it
is readily apparent in the case that there were no inconsistencies with the victim’s
testimonies and it is also backed up by medical certification issued from the UP-PGH.
There was also no showing that the victim may have some motive in initiating criminal
proceedings against the accused. Jurisprudence provides that, “When there is no
evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify
against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime, the logical
conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.” (People v. Malabago
271 SCRA 464)
 While it is true that an innocent party should not suffer for a crime that he has not
committed, the rights of the victim to attain justice and repair her honor should also be
protected. Although there is the presumption of innocence afforded to everyone, such is
not absolute. We should not overlook established facts, jurisprudence and rule of logic
and hastily and conveniently jump aboard the presumption of innocence.

Wherefore, in light of the arguments and evidence established, we move for the
conviction of the accused for the crime of rape.